MaxIcon

Sounds like you put the wrong firmware in. The Dahua support boards (such as they are) are full of people in similar dilemmas - putting the LH software into the LE-AS or similar (that's pretty old software, too - 2010?). Unfortunately, since you can't get to the web page for software updates, you have to use TFTP to load compatible software. This requires connecting via a serial cable and TFTP server, uploading the correct software, and restarting. Best bet is to contact your distributor if you're not a hardware/software hacker, as you'll need the right serial cable (currently undocumented, but may be a standard pinout) and the right software. You can find the instructions here: http://www.dahuasecurity.com/download_4.html

I can't speak for ICRealtime, but one of my Dahuas is a K&D rebrand. The only difference is there's a sticker on the camera with the K&D model and SN. The firmware reports the Dahua model number, serial number, and software versions, and it takes Dahua upgrades with no problem. The QSee versions are different, though, with their own custom firmware. One person reported they could change their Dahua to the QSee firmware, but it wouldn't let them change back. YMMV, as always!

Welcome, tired pilgrim, Into the circle, Avigilon's been waiting. Everyone's gathered For your arrival All the believers... Sorry, Avigilon guys, just another joke (like the Dahua comment); please don't ban me! Just to clarify, I think my first comment was mis-interpreted... I didn't actually say that. What I said, regarding their support, was: The implication here is that Dahua requires going through their authorized dealers for everything, like Avigilon does, but you don't get the quality support you get with Avigilon. I can understand that trade-off - if I was supplying corporate sites, I'd seriously consider Avigilon for their support and integration, and Dahua wouldn't even come into the equation, due to their lack of quality in many areas. I hope the Avillagers will put away the pitchforks...

IP cams have much better remote access, much better controllability (depending on the brand), and much, much better resolution. Comparing low end IP cams and similarly priced analog cams, low light performance is often better with the analog cams, but this is partly because you've got the same size sensors gathering the equivalent of 0.3MP resolution, vs 1, 2, or whatever for the IP cam. This is a basic trade-off with high resolution and fixed sensor sizes. IMO, there's no comparison in practical usage, and I've retired all my analog cams, even the high performance 1/2" ones.

You can put the POE switches anywhere and run a connection from them back to the next level switch. It's normal network functionality once you get past the POE.

Of course... As I stated, releases and releases news are made availabe only to distribuitors.... Usually, DAHUA will e-mail the improvements/new functions and the tech dept of the distribuitor will check/verify/test that. OK, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is another example of how not to do it. Why not release the list of improvements to end users and let them make the decisions themselves? This is like a priesthood, where the lowly end user is dependent on the enlightened to dispense knowledge as they see fit. Sort of like Avigilon, but without the quality . I understand your points, but you'll never convince me that technical support should be filtered through middlemen, and not available directly from the manufacturer. That's just my opinion, of course, but I'm pretty set in my ways.

Why is this? Seems like it's the right thing to do for consumer systems. I have separate POE myself, but I'd think built-in POE would be good for the non-technical, and for keeping costs down.

I haven't seen any Dahua descriptions of the updates. There's no readme in any of the many releases I've seen, and their web site, of course, has nothing at all. Again, community support - various users install it, each figures out some of the changes, and we pass the info around on the forums. I can't speak for all of them, but every camera I have (Vivotek, Rainbow (when they were still active), Messoa, Arecont - all have downloadable firmware, no registration or info required - just go to the website and download. Again, you make some good points, but anything that runs on firmware these days needs to have updates readily accessible to users. It's not like we can pirate the stuff somehow to run on Foscams and make them awesome.

Why would you trust a firmware sent by anyone over Internet (just my opinion)? Aren't you afraid that could brick your hardware or, worst, that someone "planted" a little backdoor in the firmware? The source of your PC's OS is a forum? Just curious and trying to raise the awareness level... we are talking about hidden free access to your cameras... We are also talking about security devices, video access and recording access - better than any malware that records your cameras! You make some good points, but alas, Dahua makes it nearly impossible to get firmware any other way. The ball's in their court. They're the ones making casual users rely on the community for support. I've said this many times before, but their terrible customer support and firmware support is one of their biggest weaknesses. I don't think they're listening, or if they are, they don't care.

Heh! Yes, WDR. I work for Western Digital, and we're WDC, so the fingers were on autopilot! If you get a newer version of software from your vendor, I'd love to get a copy of it.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Expensive POE and true plug-and-play are the big stumbling blocks for the non-technical user. If ONVIF ever gets their act together, that would be half of it done, and more vendors (both surveillance and general home networking) integrating POE would bring the prices down.

I've only got one Messoa - an NCR870 - and it's been a bit problematic. It has network packet corruption problems that cause intermittent dropouts and corrupted frames, though I did find a combination of settings that work 95% of the time. It's not good at dramatic exposure differences. When my back yard is in bright sunlight, I can choose between too-dark shadows or washed-out highlights. If the model you're looking at has WDR, that would probably be a big improvement. The IR performance is decent, but tends to wash out close objects, like so many IR bullets; again, WDR would probably help that. Overall not a bad camera, assuming I got a lemon, but I wouldn't buy another. I don't have any Axis or ACTi, and can't compare them.

This thread discusses the exposure problems and has a link to the 2012-07-24 firmware, which has been working pretty well on my HFW3300C. viewtopic.php?f=53&t=31849 It's still a little buggy (typical Dahua) but enables WDC and other good stuff. There may be a newer version, but I haven't seen it yet.

Most of the downside issues are software related, and software can go a long ways to make things more user friendly. This can be automated, either by someone setting defacto industry standards, or if ONVIF or something similar actually gets good enough to be useful. Getting on the internet used to be a task that non-technical users struggled with, and now anyone can do it. I see the market for surveillance cams growing steadily, as quality rises and costs drop, so it'll take someone pulling an Apple and making an easy, friendly system that does what most people need in a plug-and-play fashion. The output of inexpensive analog cams is so terrible compared to inexpensive IP cams, and with IR and WDR becoming pretty usable in the mid-range, the low-light image quality issue starts to become unimportant for casual users. We'll see, but I actually think 5 years is probably conservative. I'd guess IP cams will take over 80% of the market in 2 years. As you say, we'll see, but I'm thinking it's a good time to be getting rid of analog gear while there's still a demand...

After running analog systems for many years, at home and at work, I started adding some IP cams a few years back, and it didn't take too long to shut down all the analog gear and retire it. I'm a computer nerd, so I had spare systems to run the software on and only needed the cameras and POE gear. Having a good understanding of basic networking and PCs was a major asset as well; lack of this would have made the transition even more frustrating. The analog gear was a mix of mid range and low end, with some great cams and optics in key locations, and the IP cams are much better, with lots better access and control. Downsides of IP are greater complexity, more to go wrong, more computer/networking knowledge needed, less plug-and-play capability, and poorer low light performance at the middle price range and below. Upsides are much better flexibility in recording and viewing systems, much better resolution, and much better control over camera parameters and options, depending on the brands. I see analog as a dying breed, except at the very cheapest segment of the market. I believe in 5 years analog will be essentially dead.

This is usually caused by dropped frames or network packet loss. Dropped frames look a bit different, so I'd suspect network problems. Do both cameras do the same thing? What software are you using for them, and do you see the problem on the browser? If it's both cams, it may be a POE switch problem, the connection from switch to PC, or a network hardware/driver problem in the PC. If it's just one, it could be a bad cam or cable. Try running Wireshark to see if it sees corrupted packets coming from the cameras.

I may be wrong on that one (I'm no expert on this software - Tom's the guy for that), but it was in my folder, with the current IP address listed inside, but with some older labels from my previous PC as well. The file date was current, though, and I had deleted the entire folder when I re-installed. There was also a text file with the same info, but I don't remember the name off hand.

Yeah, that's pretty ugly! Does it do this on both MJPEG and MPEG4, and does it ever clear up? If it's frame loss, it's pretty major frame loss. I'd guess it's having problems with a failing component/chip, or possibly overheating. A bad cable or connection could be the problem, too - anything that would cause network packet corruption or data loss. You could test for overheating by unplugging it for 20 minutes, then restarting, to see if the problem is better. Likewise, connecting another camera would help isolate between the camera and the rest of the system, and a different cable should be easy enough to check out. Network troubleshooting software like Wireshark would tell you if you're getting corrupted packets. It's complex software, but there are lots of tutorials if you're not familiar with it. You'd set it to show packets from the camera's IP address, and bad or corrupted packets are displayed in red.

Hard to say without seeing the images, but if it leaves a trail of pixels behind a moving image, like partial images or ghost images, this is often an encoding issue, where the update frames aren't all getting through after the key frame. For MPEG4, the key frame should be the entire image, then the next frames are just updates to what's changed. If one or more of them get dropped, you lose some of the changes, and the pixels that should have been updated get left behind as they were. It then clears up when the next key frame is sent. To test for this, you'd check if that's the patter - clear image, then ghost images, then another clear image, on a cycle of however many frames the key frame interval is set for. So, a key frame interval of 20 on a 10 fps camera would give a clear image every 2 seconds. For MJPEG, every frame should be an entire image, which gives better quality, but much higher bandwidth. If it happens on MJPEG too, you may have an encoding issue in the camera itself.

NTSC is what I need. Thanks!

I just tried this, and realized I hadn't connected remotely on this PC since changing NV PCs when I switched from an NV5000 to an NV6240-16 and updating to 7.9.0.0029 software. It didn't work (probably user error, since I don't use this much), so I uninstalled and re-installed, then figured out what I was doing wrong. It gave me various file access errors when I tried a re-install over the existing uninstall. On mine, I don't see the weird window issues you show, and it connects fine when I set up the IP/port and click Network. I also selected autologin, and that works fine too. Your System Setting window seems to have dropped some periods in the IP address - dunno if that's the screen cap, or real, but that could cause it. You can double-check that by looking in the \Program Files (x86)\remoteAP\DVR00.INI file, [Network] section, and checking that the IP address and other settings are correct there. My first Aver NV install had trouble due to the video driver, and updating it fixed everything up, so that may be worth a try, given the screen problems.

What's the resolution? 1Mbps is pretty low for high res cams, but should be OK for D1/VGA res. Fast movement is where problems with a low data rate often shows up.

Thanks - that was a really useful post! For turning off the IR, you should be able to unplug the IR board with no issues. I tried this with my HFW3300C, and it worked as normal, since it doesn't use the IR board sensor for anything except turning the IR on and off. If you power up the camera and cover/uncover the sensor, the LEDs switch on and off immediately, so the software apparently has nothing to do with switching (in this version, at least). Other cams, like the Vivotek IP8332, use the IR board sensor to switch between day and night mode as well (which is why it's much faster than the Dahua), but the Dahuas use the video signal to decide when to switch modes.

Yeah, this looks like a firmware bug. Dahua's firmware is not their high point - it's buggy and glitchy, there's no control over key items, and they don't fix bugs very often. I'd be interested in getting a copy of this firmware, if anyone can post it somewhere. I'm on the previous version, and would like to try it out.

Another thought - dual monitors on your PC, assuming your video card supports this. If this worked, you'd just drag the NV window to the second monitor and use the first monitor for your PC work. This would give better resolution than using the TV Out signal. I believe the current NV software supports dual monitors, but I've never run them on my NV boxes. Maybe some of the more experienced Aver users could comment.